Hacker News Reader

Comment by capote | Hacker News Reader

It's disappointing to me that some people defend racists and xenophobes against being called racists and xenophobes. This is what they are, and it's completely appropriate to call them that, and worse.

Please note the "status quo" is in fact moving away from racism and xenophobia, very slowly. This is much better than scrapping the "status quo" in favor of plunging back into racism and xenophobia.

If the "status quo" isn't working for you and you want to scrap it in favor of Trump or Brexit, then you probably are not affected by issues like racism and xenophobia. And you need to look around you at minorities, immigrants, and Muslims, and consider them carefully before making a vote. For them, the "status quo" is definitely an improvement over Trump and Brexit, and we definitely shouldn't forget about them just because we're upset with things changing very slowly.

View on HN

This is a "guilty by association" logical fallacy. While some Brexitors are racist xenophobes, not all are. I find it hard to believe that 51% of the (voting) public is racist. This is the same thing that underpins the erroneous, "All Muslims are terrorists!" trope. Of course they're not!

Your last paragraph makes a solid point, but it's a tough point to make. You're asking people to effectively vote against their own best interests because it's in the best interests of someone else. Any rational voter will rightly wonder why they should have to suffer to better someone else: shouldn't there be a solution that benefits all? (Or, bluntly, a solution that impacts a minority of voters who can't change the status quo?)

> While some Brexitors are racist xenophobes, not all are

And the ones that are should not be called racist xenophobes because they they voted leave and the other 50.99% might get upset about the association?

The point trying to be made is that they are racist because they are racist - not that they are racist because they are Brexitors. It's an important distinction to make. In the same vein of thought, terrorists should be called terrorists because they are terrorists and not because they are Muslim.

And I happen to agree that Muslims shouldn't be called terrorists and not just because some majority % would be upset about the association.

Your arrogance is truly stagering. The EU is large institution and their are many reasons to be against it.

I would wager that I am far more pro-immigration the you are and I would have voted leave.

> You're asking people to effectively vote against their own best interests because it's in the best interests of someone else.

I'm asking people to consider the fundamental rights of others and to notice that they're at risk. Compared to putting up with the status quo for a bit longer, losing fundamental rights and being discriminated against by the government is a much larger issue.

I'm asking people to put up with the status quo for a bit more because the only alternative is discrimination and would take away fundamental rights of others.

>I'm asking people to consider the fundamental rights of others and to notice that they're at risk.

This may come as a shock but you'd be surprised at how little anyone cares about the "fundamental rights of others" when their own livelihood and the well being of their families are at risk regardless of what part of the political spectrum they're on.

This is not an attack on you nor sarcasm, just a blunt statement of fact. The left (of which I am a part) cannot, can not, ask people to "put up with the status quo for a bit more" in the current political environment. That will lead to Brexits, President Trump, and whatever lies beyond. Instead of berating them for being "uneducated" and "voting against their own interests", we on the left must remember our role as champions of the working class and relieve their economic suffering _now_, "fundamental rights of others" be damned, or we will all pay the price.

>I'm asking people to consider the fundamental rights of others and to notice that they're at risk.

The cognitive dissonance is unbelievable, especially from those who are otherwise pretty intelligent.

1) immigrants making choices to come to a country in order to improve their economic situation are heroes.

2) non-immigrants voting for policies to improve their economic situation are haters and bigots.

I would love for people in my country to vote for policies that improved their economic conditions. Instead they listen to propaganda pushed by multiple billionaires (and many, many millionaires) working together to change politics, and who've discovered the best way to get people to vote against their own interests is fear of the other.

The irony in your comment is that both sides are saying the same thing! No one thinks they are voting against their best interests, billionaires exist on both sides of the spectrum, and fear is a tool used by the right and the left.

Then we've arrived at a simple priority difference. I suppose I simply don't care that much about economic suffering of people when the values upon which my country was founded are in question ("that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."). I think these values are just marginally more important than the immediate well being of the middle class.

Note: all men, not all straight white Americans who aren't Muslims and are in economic turmoil

In my opinion, the most magical thing about the United States is our duty and tendency to welcome all people of the world, of any religion, of any ancestry, with open arms and make available a better life for them. If you take this away, I'm not too impressed with this country (as compared to most of Western Europe).

What values are we talking about, though? "Immigration" isn't an unalienable right, though might be a core value of the U.S. (being a nation of immigrants, after all).

But at the end of the day, the President's job is to protect the American people first and foremost.* Visitors and immigrants get protection under law, but, not at the expense of the American people. Safety, economic prosperity, and job security might fall into that category. On that reasonable minds can debate.

I think there's a lot of nationalism vs. pluralism going on right now. Brexit is one example; U.S. immigration and foreign policy is another.

(* It's actually not. It's to "defend and uphold the Constitution". Which does speak to citizens vs. non-citizens. But President Obama and others say things like, "I have no greater responsibility than protecting the American people." So anyway: nuance.)

> though might be a core value of the U.S. (being a nation of immigrants, after all).

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Like I said in the later bit of my post, our openness to immigrants and the lack of European-style nationalism and nationalistic discrimination is my favorite thing about the US. If this goes, I'd much rather live in Europe.

Like I said in another post, it's a matter of priorities. Of course I can't disagree that we need safety (cough gun control cough), economic prosperity, and job security. But unless these things are in much worse shape than they are now, I find that their importance doesn't hold up terribly well to what makes America great! :)

To me, Western Europe is a place where I can lead a much higher quality of life (I've lived in Germany and Switzerland and much prefer it over there). But I keep coming back to loving the US because we don't have this strange attitude I see in many Europeans of kinda... scowling at foreigners, thinking they're out of place, treating them differently... In fact, it's the contrary. In the US, we love foreigners. We're impressed by them, the languages they speak, the cultures and ideas they bring, and if we start having a more European approach to immigration, I'm worried we'll lose that. Then the US will become just another country.

The issue is that any Trump supporter is immediately labelled a racist xenophobe. It's also possible to be anti-immigration and support many of other Trump's policies despite not being racist or xenophobic. People always jump to that conclusion though, hence the OP's frustration with all the name calling.

That's because any Trump supporter (be it by privilege or other) seems to be unfazed by Trump's racism and xenophobia. If we elect him, these are policies that will be at risk of being enacted, and this will affect minorities, immigrants, and Muslims. This is a large cost to our society, values, democracy, you name it.

In modern times, not caring that the rights of minorities and immigrants will be trampled is rightfully interpreted as being a racist xenophobe. We are trying to collectively move away from these old-fashioned bad ideas, and supporting Trump is backward in this sense.

> That's because any Trump supporter (be it by privilege or other) seems to be unfazed by Trump's racism and xenophobia.

If you say that one cannot morally support Trump because Trump is a racist and xenophobe at heart, would you also say that one cannot support Hilary, because she is a drug warrior and "tough on crime" crusader at heart?

(I think the answer is no, because it's reasonable to support a politician without endorsing all of that politician's world views).

I think you'd be surprised to find that the answer for many is yes. I for one cannot in good conscience support any politician whose economics are neoliberal and whose social policies are oppressive. I think Trump's xenophobia and Hillary's authoritarian social policies (which also disproportionally negatively affect disadvantaged minority groups) are absolutely immoral and moral people should not support these candidates.

I realize that I occupy a position outside of the political mainstream in America, but I suspect that is changing. I expect to see many more people rejecting neoliberal economics as a game rigged against workers by the bourgeoisie.

No. I don't like Hillary by any means, and I don't like her attitude on drug war and crime and whatever else you wanna cite, but these things are mere political differences, whereas racism and xenophobia are immoral, utterly nauseating, and unamerican.

>this will affect minorities, immigrants, and Muslims

It is possible to support policies that affect these groups without being racist or xenophobic. It's unfortunate that there are groups that will suffer as the result of things like immigration laws, but there are several very strong arguments to support immigration laws. Would we want unlimited, open immigration from Mexico? The vast majority of people would say no, but that's also affecting Mexican and South American people tremendously. Why is there no uproar about xenophobia directed at those people?

I think some (many? IDK) are not unfazed by the "bad" parts of Trump's message - it's just that they agree so strongly with the "good" parts (whatever they feel is "good") that they are willing to hold their nose and overlook the "bad" parts.

Mainly because the status quo on both the Republican and Democratic side supports the economic policies that have been so bad for them.

See, this is what fascinates me. I don't think it's that Trump supports are "unfazed by his racism and xenophobia". I think it's that they don't see it as racism and xenophobia. After all (playing devil's advocate)...

Trump has never mentioned race negatively. Mexican is not a race (it's a country). Muslim is not a race (it's a religion).

Trump's comments on immigration, trade, or terrorism doesn't come from a dislike of people from other countries, but a desire to put American citizens first. This might be what you want from an American President.

So your "racist xenophobe" is someone else's "nationalist leader".

But name-calling tamps down reasonable discourse in all cases. (And Trump is as guilty of this as anyone, but certainly not the sole offender.) Going up to a Trump supporter and saying, "Hi you racist xenophobe, want to have a level-headed discussion on nationalism and human rights?" doesn't work so well.

The profoundly negative coverage of Trump is doing as much to explain his success as anything else. It causes people to shut down. And it's not healthy for anyone.

I don't mind your tone, but your logic, while more thought out than just blindly calling someone racist/xenophobic, is really just a more verbose talking down to of Trump supporters.

"These people believe stupid things, and they won't respond to logic unless you sugar coat it"

Which part? (Seriously.)

My point was that there's no one source of truth. Perception is reality. To a vast majority of his supporters, Trump is not a racist xenophobe. Period, full stop. And this isn't stupid: an intelligent, reasonable person could make that argument. And plenty of Trump supporters are intelligent, reasonable people.

Did something get lost in translation?

Okay, that's fair. I took your original post to mean something along the lines of "Trump supporters believe something stupid, and when you talk down to them, they just dig into their stupid beliefs. If you would come at them nicely, you would have a better chance of teaching them how stupid their beliefs are"

The exact opposite! If your train of thought starts with "Trump supporters believe something stupid" (or wrong, or racist, or whatever), you've already lost the discussion. Because you're not interested in having a discussion: you're interested in forcing your worldview on someone or, more likely, parroting someone else's talking points.

I'll say that a different way: if you think that a large number of people with whom you disagree are stupid (or racist, or whatever excuse you choose to minimize their logical decisionmaking), YOU ARE IGNORANT AND NAIVE.

You may disagree with them. That's fine. You might be interested in finding common ground and compromise instead of running around accusing everyone of being a stupid, racist xenophobe. In that case, you're looking to have a dialogue which can only happen from positions of mutual respect.

That respect is lacking, particularly on the vocal left.

You may convince someone to "see things your way", but you have to open yourself up to see things their way.

I completely agree with pretty much everything you say. It was hard for me to tell if you were making a specific point about "special" Trump supporter, or a general point about persuasion. I took it the wrong way, probably due to my cynicism of the level headedness of discussions that happen online. My bad. Goes to show what I know.

> "nationalist leader"

Trump cannot be a nationalist leader as he does not respect the principles upon which this nation was founded (see my other comments for more specificity).

Okay, I'll bite. I support Trump, and don't see him as racist or xenophobic. I don't see how enforcing laws already on the books regarding legal immigration is racist. If you are a white person from Canada here illegally, you would be subject to the same punishment/deportation as a brown person illegally here form Guatemala.

Trump has repeatedly said that immigrants are more than welcome, but they need to come legally. How is that racist?

How about his comments regarding the judge?

Are you suggesting that the judge is a robot and doesn't have any possibility of bias in the case, when his parents(illegal aliens) were exactly the people that Trump claims will be deported?

When Sotomayor said that a wise latina woman could come to better conclusions than old white men, was that racist too?

What about when Curiel himself admitted that his heritage has influenced his practice of the law in the past[1] (when he was a drug prosecutor in the late 90s)

> According to participants on both sides, the Mexicans looked across the table at Mr. Chavez, Mr. Vega and Mr. Curiel, all born of Mexican parents, and the spark of recognition lit a fire.

> "It couldn't but help," Mr. Curiel said. "We were working without the disconnect of interpreters and barriers of culture. When it comes down to it, this involves the country of our parents." Mr. Vega, now in private practice, said the simple fact that the meetings were conducted in Spanish "broke the ice."

> "It was confianza," he said, the Spanish word for trust.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/26/international/americas/26D...

Is "culturalism" a better term than "racism"? As in, how many people are rejecting people because of their race, and how many are rejecting them because they want to live in the culture of their original homeland? Is "culturalism" just as bad as racism in your mind? Are any cultures more preferable to you than others? Seemingly yes, because you want a xenophilia culture?

I ve seen countrys run by those minorities you hold so high- and no, those are not values at all. The trump voters in a muslim country, just dont call there trump trump- they call him husseine, chomeini etc., they vote anti-immigrant (christian/jew) and they vote pro circle with theire feet. (poverty-> overpopulation -> religion -> war -> poverty ) What makes those trump voters from a distance so lovely?

Is Trump even anti-immigration in general? The only immigration related topic I've heard him talk about is illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

> The only immigration related topic I've heard him talk about is illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

Aside from talking about currently illegal immigration, he's also talked about a ban on foreign Muslims (the details of which have morphed over time), he's talked about curtailing existing legal immigration programs (focssing on the H-1B, but he's also said he'd implement an "absolute requirement to hire Americans first for every visa and immigration program" -- which doesn't even make sense for many visa categories and immigration programs [including the main US set of immigration visa categories, which are the family-based categories], but its what he said), he's suggested increased application and other fees for existing legal immigration programs.

While I'm uncomfortable with the ban on Muslims, what is so bad about having fewer immigrants? It's just another policy that we could tweak.

Whether it's bad or not is beside the point; the upthread question was whether Trump was only against illegal immigration or against immigration more broadly. His campaign statements make it clear that the latter is the case.

You are, of course, free to think that's a good thing.

With the caveat that his comments on Muslims are not part of the immigration debate, but rather the ISIS / terrorism / homeland security debate. I guess you can't have one without the other, but there is nuance there.

His comments on Muslims are absolutely about banking certain immigrants. Like his comments about Mexicans being rapists, etc., they use safety issues as the justification for the stance against immigrants, but they are absolutely about immigration.

There's a chicken-or-egg scenario here. Do we block immigration because of safety (or employment, or other) reasons, or are those "reasons" just excuses to block immigration (due to racism or xenophobia I guess?).

You're claiming it's the latter. What do you base that on?

> You're claiming it's the latter.

No, I'm not. I'm claiming that "security" and "immigration" aren't disjoint categories of policy discussions such that just because a position on immigration has some reference to security concerns, its part of the "security debate" but not part of the "immigration debate"; Trump has made many comments against immigration (and not just currently-illegal immigration). Some of those comments have been justified by economic concerns, some have been justified by security concerns. But that doesn't make the former about the economy but not immigration, and it doesn't make the latter about security but not immigration. Instead, it makes the former about economics and about immigration, and the latter about security and about immigration.

> it's completely appropriate to call them that, and worse

Leaving aside all the arguments over whether it's accurate to do so, here's a question that might be worth asking:

Is it useful?

No one likes being labeled. That's as true for people with whom you do not agree as it is for those with whom you do.

If the objective is a productive discussion of differences and, ultimately, a peaceful transition into a future that works better for everyone, then applying derogatory labels to people whose view of the world differs from your own is probably not very useful.

If the objective is to insert as many crowbars as possible into already extant political, economic, and social divides, and do as much as possible to pry them open even wider, then applying derogatory labels is a great strategy. Of course, in that case, it's hard to be taken seriously when you profess surprise and dismay at the unfavorable reception you're given by those with whom you do not agree. But I've yet to see that really stop anyone.

>Is it useful?

"But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabo...

Dare I ask in what connection you quote Ted Kaczynski of all people? I mean, I'm sure you are not trying to tar me with the same brush, for no better reason than because I happen to be saying something superficially similar to something Ted Kaczynski once said. But I must confess I fail to see any other way in which this quote is germane. Perhaps you'll enlighten me.

Only to note that the sentiment you've expressed has been expanded upon before, and something worth discussing, even if it was said by an unsavory character. No further implications. Sorry.

No apology necessary; I appreciate both the expansion and the lack of attempt to slur by association - the latter, in particular, being something I've learned one can't expect every Hacker News commenter to forgo.

> It's disappointing to me that some people defend racists and xenophobes against being called racists and xenophobes. This is what they are, and it's completely appropriate to call them that, and worse.

In your opinion, is it racist or xenophobic for people in Britain to believe that the laws that govern them should maximize the prosperity of people in Britain, and not that of anyone else?

But the laws that govern them have maximized the prosperity of people in Britain, just not them. So yes, it is racist and xenophobic to blame anyone but their own country for them not partaking in their country's prosperity.

The EU optimizes the prosperity of the EU collectively, rather than the prosperity of Britain specifically. That is by design: when heads of national governments sit in the European Commission (correction: Council), they are obligated to consider the interests of the whole EU, not the interests of the nation they represent.

when heads of national governments sit in the European Commission

Heads of national governments do not sit in the European Commission, they form the European Council.

You're right, but my point stands: commission members are obligated to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole, not that of their home state. They're precluded, by oath from favoring the policies that maximize the prosperity of their home state.

Yes, but there is no conflict of interest: they are not directly elected in their home country.

But that's not the point. The European Commission and European Parliament can, together, make laws directly binding on British citizens. But in making those laws, those bodies are required to consider not just the welfare of British citizens, but the EU as a whole.

Which brings me back to my question: is it racist and xenophobic for the British not to want to be governed by people who owe allegiances to people besides the British?

No, the members of the European Parliament are not required to ignore the impact of treaties on their own country. Moreover, every country has the option to veto new treaties, like the UK did when the EU tried to introduce banking regulations to strengthen the Euro: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/09/david-cameron-...

A nitpick: the EU does not write laws, they write directives. It is up to every country's national parliament to write their own laws that meet/implement the directives.

That's false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union). The EU has the power to enact laws that are immediately binding on citizens of member states. Not only that, EU regulations preempt national laws, just like U.S. federal laws preempt state laws.

Thanks, didn't know that.

This doesn't seem like a bad thing for the UK or any other EU member, care to explain why you think it is?

Please place your identity-based politics in the trash where they belong.

Wealth inequality and the class struggle are the defining problems of our generation, and all this nonsense about who is more underprivileged than whom is merely a concerted attempt to obfuscate that.

I think everyone can have their own perspective on what a defining problem is. If you're straight and white, wealth inequality is a problem. If you're not, then I beg to differ on what the defining problem is.

If you can't at least try to see issues from other people's perspectives, then that's your main problem.

You can hold those perspectives, but it doesn't change the fact that wealth inequality affects vastly more people than, by your suggestions, issues of sexual orientation and race.

I would even stand behind the notion that wealth inequality affects literally everyone, both the haves and the have-nots, while the other issues affect a minority, by definition.

I would also argue that it is perhaps advantageous to those minorities to rally behind the unifying cause of wealth inequality in order to maximize their political impact simply because if they focus on minority issues, their voice is diluted among the concerns of the overwhelming majority (which, in this particular case, is still white, in the US).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com